Missed approach procedure...

Roy Smith wrote:

wrote:
You continue the climb in the holding pattern.

Roy Smith wrote:
What holding pattern? There is no such pattern shown on the chart.

wrote:
Huh?

Sure is on my KSZT LDA chart? On the 231 radial of the VOR.

I was talking about what if you didn't reach 8000 by I-RPO 10 DME.
There's no hold depicted at that fix.

You better not hold there.

You're climbing to 8,000 to get there at some point in the missed approach
procedure, not at the I-RPO 10 DME. Note it says "...then climbing right
turn" after the 10 DME.

wrote:
You're climbing to 8,000 to get there at some point in the missed approach
procedure, not at the I-RPO 10 DME. Note it says "...then climbing right
turn" after the 10 DME.

OK, I guess this makes sense. Somehow the wording of the procedure
threw me. I parsed it as (climb to 8000 to I-RPO 10 DME) then (climbing
right turn, etc). I guess if they wanted to make sure you were at 8000
by I-RPO 10 DME they would have said "cross I-RPO 10 DME at 8000".

I never thought about it before, but it now occurs to me that missed
procedures violate the rule about the order in which clearance elements
are given. Normally it's CRAFT (Clearance Limit, Route, Altitude,
Frequency, Transponder). With a missed, it's altitude Altitude, Route.
Clearance Limit.

Put into CRAFT format, the missed would read something like:

Cleared to the COE VOR via I-RPO back course, I-RPO 10 DME, right turn
to intercept the 210 bearing to SZT, SZT 181 bearing and COE 359R, climb
and maintain 8000.

With it worded that way, I never would have thought there was any
altitude crossing restriction at the 10 DME fix. I wonder what
historical event led to the dichotomy?

Roy Smith wrote:

wrote:
You're climbing to 8,000 to get there at some point in the missed approach
procedure, not at the I-RPO 10 DME. Note it says "...then climbing right
turn" after the 10 DME.

OK, I guess this makes sense. Somehow the wording of the procedure
threw me. I parsed it as (climb to 8000 to I-RPO 10 DME) then (climbing
right turn, etc). I guess if they wanted to make sure you were at 8000
by I-RPO 10 DME they would have said "cross I-RPO 10 DME at 8000".

I never thought about it before, but it now occurs to me that missed
procedures violate the rule about the order in which clearance elements
are given. Normally it's CRAFT (Clearance Limit, Route, Altitude,
Frequency, Transponder). With a missed, it's altitude Altitude, Route.
Clearance Limit.

Put into CRAFT format, the missed would read something like:

Cleared to the COE VOR via I-RPO back course, I-RPO 10 DME, right turn
to intercept the 210 bearing to SZT, SZT 181 bearing and COE 359R, climb
and maintain 8000.

With it worded that way, I never would have thought there was any
altitude crossing restriction at the 10 DME fix. I wonder what
historical event led to the dichotomy?

As limited as airtime is, there is more "bandwidth" than there is on a chart.
The missed approach text is not an ATC clearance, rather it's a description of a
flight track. ATC protects the airspace automatically as part of your approach
clearance (they can later amend that with a radar vector clearance where they
have radar, or they can sometimes issue an alternate missed approach track,
provided it's on the source for the approach procedure that they have at the
facility).

There are two different government "worlds" at play. You're thinking ATC, but
this charting stuff is Flight Standards, Air Force, Army, industry, NACO, etc.
The consensus for a long time has to been to state the missed approach final
altitude first, and keep the note as short as possible.

wrote in message ...
Ryan Ferguson wrote:

"The instructions on this approach account for the possibility of
reaching 8000 at any point during the procedure.

Well, not exactly. There is no earlist point but there is a 40:1 (or, more practically 200 feet per mile)
minimum limit.

Yes, but that is implicit from the fact that this climb gradient
minimum applies to the procedure in question unless otherwise stated.

Ryan Ferguson wrote:

wrote in message ...
Ryan Ferguson wrote:

"The instructions on this approach account for the possibility of
reaching 8000 at any point during the procedure.

Well, not exactly. There is no earlist point but there is a 40:1 (or, more practically 200 feet per mile)
minimum limit.

Yes, but that is implicit from the fact that this climb gradient
minimum applies to the procedure in question unless otherwise stated.

Picking at nits: Not everyone that works with this stuff agrees that there is a 200' per mile CG requirement
for TERPs missed approach procedures. Historically, the 40:1 has been known as an obstacle identification
surface (OIS). OTOH, with DPs the 40:1 is an initial assessment surface, then a peformance slope is
established.

"Barry" wrote in message
...
Wow. What on earth did they have in mind when the wrote that? The
route is bizarre. By the time you reach 8000, you're above the sector
MSA (and 3000 feet above anything shown on the chart). What point is
there in making you turn west to Sandpoe instead of just going direct
Coeur D'Alane?

This procedure actually seems reasonable to me (except for the error that
Bill
pointed out - 030 bearing should be 210). Using 8000 for the missed
provides
separation from incoming traffic at 7000. For a climb at 200 ft/nm, the
10
DME ensures you're above 5500 or so before turning. At that point you're
about 44 nm from the VOR, so they use the NDB for navigation until you get
back within the VOR service volume.

Barry

The NACO chart textual description of the missed approach procedure is
defective in that the word "bearing", as used in aviation navigation,
defaults to "bearing to". If "bearing from" is necessary, the the
word "from" must be used. Unlike a VOR radial, that can be tracked
inbound or outbound, "SZT bearing 030 to SZT NDB" as stated in the
NACO missed is impossible in ths case, as one would have to be
southwest of the NDB in order to track inbound on the 030 bearing.
Also, the missed should state 181 bearing from, to specify the
outbound track from the NDB. This is proper phraseology, as per the
7110.65

You seem to think that either bearing number, 030 or 210 should make
no difference. A textual description of a missed approach must be
complete in itself and need not be suplemented by additional charting
prior to the published hold.

If you look again at both charts, you will see that Jepessen has it
right and NACO has it wrong. It's not rocket science to figure it
out, but one should not have to dance around improper phraseology to
get it right. The bearing you are flying is the same number as your
heading corrected for wind drift, not the reciprocal as NACO has it.



On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 04:52:28 -0800, wrote:



Bill Zaleski wrote:

The textual wording of the government missed aproach is wrong,
misleading, and potentially dangerous. Jeppesen has it right. Should
be 210 bearing (to) and 181bearing from SZT. Otherwise, it is a
fairly simple, straightforward missed, although long. 8000' is the
final altitude and need not be reached prior to the 10 DME fix


I have both charts in front of me and they both show the same misses approach
track in the plan view; and in particular as to the 210 degree bearing inbound to
SZT NDB. Whether it says 210 or 030 for that portion of the track doesn't seem
to me to represent a safety issue for the NACO chart.

But, you see it differently and apparently feel strongly about it. In that case,
the most responsible thing for you to do is to contact the Northwest Mountain
Region's Flight Procedures Office in Seattle and make your safety concerns known.

I presume you mean that someone might keep going NE on the NDB's 030 bearing? If
so, that is contrary to the plan view track and contrary to the context of
getting toCOE VOR, which is way south.

It would be interesting to see the text on the regulatory source document.
Neither chart maker is supposed to deviate from the source. Rather, if *they*
don't like the source they are supposed to complain to the National Flight
Procedures Office and make their case to get the source amended. That is the way
it's *supposed* to work, but it doesn't always work as planned.

My view is that pilots are beginning to rely on the briefing strip symbololy at
the exclusion of everything else on the chart pertaining to the missed approach
procedural track and altitude requirements. That wasn't the plan when the Volpe
briefing strip concept came into use.

Bill Zaleski wrote:


You seem to think that either bearing number, 030 or 210 should make
no difference. A textual description of a missed approach must be
complete in itself and need not be suplemented by additional charting
prior to the published hold.

I never said there was no difference. What I said is that the context makes it
obvious what the flight track should be. Over the years there has been lots of
changes about how NDB bearings are stated or portrayed, so context is always
important.



If you look again at both charts, you will see that Jepessen has it
right and NACO has it wrong. It's not rocket science to figure it
out, but one should not have to dance around improper phraseology to
get it right. The bearing you are flying is the same number as your
heading corrected for wind drift, not the reciprocal as NACO has it.

No, NACO has it right and Jeppesen has it wrong in the sense that the source (legal)
document states it exactly as NACO states it. Granted, Jeppesen says it better, but
they did that on their own.

The policy that the procedures specialist followed when this procedure was issued
mandated to use bearings from for NDB bearings, whether to or from the facility..
That policy has been changed in Change 3 to Flight Procedures and Airspace (FAAH
8260.19C), to use course-to and bearing-from for NDB facilities.

What galls me is that Jeppesen would change it without coordinating with the FAA
office responsible for this stuff. If they were perfect, that would be different.
But, they are far from it, and without following (or getting source corrected) they
are part of the problem rather than part of the solution. (i.e., procedural anarchy).

I understand your reasoning and mostly agree with you. My only
concern is that a missed approach procedure that is given in a textual
format should be able to stand on it's own and should be stated in
phraseology that is "best practice". It should be flyable even
without relying on charting, if worded properly. A bearing is a
magnetic course and represents a number coerrsponding the the flight
path of the aircraft. Perhaps the specialist did transfer the source
document info accurately as it was written, but it is still defective
as to best practice phraseology, and not as easily understandable as
Jepp's rendition. I don't know what the date of Change 3 is, but the
approach is 3 years old now and needs a rewrite. KISS works for me!
Thanks for your input.





On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 17:59:17 -0800, wrote:



Bill Zaleski wrote:


You seem to think that either bearing number, 030 or 210 should make
no difference. A textual description of a missed approach must be
complete in itself and need not be suplemented by additional charting
prior to the published hold.

I never said there was no difference. What I said is that the context makes it
obvious what the flight track should be. Over the years there has been lots of
changes about how NDB bearings are stated or portrayed, so context is always
important.



If you look again at both charts, you will see that Jepessen has it
right and NACO has it wrong. It's not rocket science to figure it
out, but one should not have to dance around improper phraseology to
get it right. The bearing you are flying is the same number as your
heading corrected for wind drift, not the reciprocal as NACO has it.

No, NACO has it right and Jeppesen has it wrong in the sense that the source (legal)
document states it exactly as NACO states it. Granted, Jeppesen says it better, but
they did that on their own.

The policy that the procedures specialist followed when this procedure was issued
mandated to use bearings from for NDB bearings, whether to or from the facility..
That policy has been changed in Change 3 to Flight Procedures and Airspace (FAAH
8260.19C), to use course-to and bearing-from for NDB facilities.

What galls me is that Jeppesen would change it without coordinating with the FAA
office responsible for this stuff. If they were perfect, that would be different.
But, they are far from it, and without following (or getting source corrected) they
are part of the problem rather than part of the solution. (i.e., procedural anarchy).

Bill Zaleski wrote:


Jepp's rendition. I don't know what the date of Change 3 is, but the
approach is 3 years old now and needs a rewrite. KISS works for me!
Thanks for your input.


The date on the current Jepp chart is because of a Jepp format change. I searched some
records. The LDA was placed into service on June 13, 1995. There are then a couple of
amendment dates for the approach procedure, effective in 1995 and 1996. Usually, there
aren't two originals issued, so they must have pulled back the first time.

In any case, the approach hasn't been reworked for at least 7 years, perhaps longer.

They used to get an annual review, but that was changed to binannual several years ago.
And, that is a pencil exercise unless there really is a reason to amend the procedure.
They should catch obsolete language in a review, but don't count on it. ;-)